Bill Cosby, of all people, is given credit for coining the phrase, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody". I don't think Cadillac got that memo when they drew up their 1985-1988 "full-size", front-wheel-drive models that were supposed to be just what every young urban professional and traditional Cadillac buyer wanted. Coupe deVille's like this with the fake wires and optional and expensive padded landau top are especially heinous. I found this 1988 for sale on Facebook Marketplace recently for sale near my office with an asking price of $4,500 and a mere 111,000-miles on its 35-year-old digital ticker. Reasonable, no? I guess. Although there's a lot more here than just a sensibly priced old car in what appears to be nice shape.
General Motors, Cadillac in particular, found itself reacting to trends rather than dictating them in the 1980's and the results of their efforts were dubious. Based on sales and critical acclaim for their first downsized models in the 1970's including the GM X-body based (Chevrolet Nova) 1975-1979 Seville, 1977 deVille and Fleetwood, and 1979 Eldorado, one could construe GM had a clear and concise plan on what to they were doing and a future of smaller Cadillac's would be chock full of blue skies and sunshine. Then came the 1980's and the "bustle back" 1980 Seville, the Oldsmobile Diesels, the V8-6-4, HT4100, Buick V-6's in deVilles, the Cimmaron and the shrunken-head 1986 Eldorado. These square, soulless, front-wheel-drive sedans, introduced in 1985, just another 1980's day at the office for an automobile brand that once boasted it was, "The Standard of the World".
Frankly, and perhaps in retrospect this is only true, it wasn't so much that General Motors went too far in downsizing and moved their flag ship model to front-wheel-drive. What made these cars so off-putting was their styling; or lack thereof. They're like people who were overweight who still wear the clothes they wore before they went on a massive crash diet. In fairness, their interiors were as cavernous as Cadillac's of yore, perhaps even more so, and they could accelerate, handle and brake with an aplomb no Cadillac before them ever did or could. Especially these 1988's with the redesigned for 1988, 4.5-liter V-8 replacing the deadly in more ways than one, "HT4100". I've driven these cars and have always been impressed. Too bad they're so damn ugly. Ultimately, their performance prowess fell on deaf ears and wallets as the customers they sought flocked to the tonier and far more expensive import makes and models these cars were an attempt to emulate. Their traditional buyers were like, "that's not a Cadillac".
Back in the day, a significant part of what made a "Cadillac a Cadillac" was not only a gaggle of luxury accoutrements and baubles and bits exclusive to the brand but their styling. There was something special about the "look" of Cadillac even if they were no better than a Buick or even a Chevrolet. Buick and Oldsmobile built a semi-handsome coupe on the smaller version of the chassis they built all these Cadillac's on, but these cars are no more, or less, than their four-door versions with two less doors. Buick's two-door Electra and Oldsmobile's two-door 98, built on the same chassis this car is, suffer from the same goofy proportions as these haughty Cadillac coupes do.
The passage of time is a great equalizer and it also creates vacuums, as such, what is this car all these years later other than just another "old '80's car"? The poster of the ad claims it's a classic - this just in, based on my definition of "classic", which is broad and generous, it's not. Then again, in fairness, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, could the same be said as to what makes a classic car a classic car?
No comments:
Post a Comment